Bank Panics and the Endogeneity of Central Banking
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES BANK PANICS AND THE ENDOGENEITY OF CENTRAL BANKING Gary Gorton Lixin Huang Working Paper 9102 http://www.nber.org/papers/w9102 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 August 2002 Thanks to Franklin Allen, Eslyn Jean-Baptiste, Michael Bordo, John Boyd, Charles Calomiris, Ed Green, Richard Kihlstrom, Holger Mueller, Ben Polak and to seminar participants at New York University, the Yale Banking Conference, and the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Conference on the Origins of Central Banking for comments and suggestions. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Bureau of Economic Research. © 2002 by Gary Gorton and Lixin Huang. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Bank Panics and the Endogeneity of Central Banking Gary Gorton and Lixin Huang NBER Working Paper No. 9102 August 2002 JEL No. G21, E58 ABSTRACT Central banking is intimately related to liquidity provision to banks during times of crisis, the lender-of-last-resort function. This activity arose endogenously in certain banking systems. Depositors lack full information about the value of bank assets so that during macroeconomic downturns they monitor their banks by withdrawing in a banking panic. The likelihood of panics depends on the industrial organization of the banking system. Banking systems with many small, undiversified banks, are prone to panics and failures, unlike systems with a few big banks that are heavily branched and well diversified. Systems of many small banks are more efficient if the banks form coalitions during times of crisis. We provide conditions under which the industrial organization of banking leads to incentive compatible state contingent bank coalition formation. Such coalitions issue money that is a kind of deposit insurance and examine and supervise banks. Bank coalitions of small banks, however, cannot replicate the efficiency of a system of big banks. Gary Gorton Lixin Huang Department of Finance Department of Economics The Wharton School University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104-6367 Philadelphia, PA 19104-6367 [email protected] and NBER [email protected] 1 I. Introduction The most important function of a central bank is to provide liquidity to the banking system in times of crisis. The classic work on central banking, Lombard Street, by Walter Bagehot, published in 1873, offered the advice that in times of panic the central bank (Bank of England) should lend freely and continue to pay out currency. At the time Lombard Street was published, there was no central bank in the U.S. and yet the private arrangement of banks in the U.S. clearinghouse system had already discovered Bagehot’s precepts and was acting on them. In this paper we argue that the lender-of-last-resort function of “central banking” arose endogenously through the formation of state contingent bank coalitions, such as clearinghouses, which provided liquidity during banking panics. Moreover, in the model we propose, banking panics are not irrational manifestations of multiple equilibria. Rather, they represent depositors monitoring their banks in banking systems composed of many small banks. Since panics do not happen in banking systems with large, heavily branched, well diversified, banks, this is consistent with the historical experience of countries internationally. A thesis of this paper is that central banking (the lender-of-last-resort) emerges as a response to the banking system’s problems. The problem is the ability of depositors to monitor their banks. Monitoring banks corresponds to banking panics, and such panics may involve inefficiencies because banks may be mistakenly liquidated. Another thesis we develop is that banking panics are not a manifestation of an inherent problem with banks per se. On the contrary, the theory we develop views panics as a rational form of monitoring of banks by uninformed depositors. Briefly, depositors know the state of the macroeconomy, but not the idiosyncratic state of their own bank. The way to check on a bank is to ask the bank to convert its demand deposits into currency. But, banks as a whole cannot do this and then the banking system faces liquidation. Historically, and in the model we present, banks form coalitions that can turn illiquid loan portfolios into liquid claims that can convince depositors that the banks, as a group, are solvent, even if a depositor’s particular bank is not. This is the lender-of-last-resort function. The model closely follows the U.S. experience with panics, not surprisingly since the U.S. is the leading example of the case of frequent banking panics. In the case of the U.S., liquidity provision by banks literally took the form of private money called “clearinghouse loan certificates.” These certificates were issued by bank coalitions and functioned as a form of deposit insurance from the point of view of depositors because they served to convert claims on a single bank into claims on the group of banks in the coalition. For depositors to accept these 2 certificates required that banks coinsure each other. Moreover, for this insurance system to work, there must be banking panics that impose externalities on the banks doing well, forcing them to subsidize other banks. We show how banking panics play a critical economic function enforcing the incentive compatibility of bank coalitions. In order for the bank coalition to form during times of panic, the banks had to agree to mutually monitor each other to enforce reserve and capital requirements. This monitoring is the historical origin of bank examination and supervision. While bank coalitions in the U.S. were highly developed because of the industrial organization of the U.S. banking system, bank coalitions appear to be part of the banking histories of most countries, as we discuss below. Sometimes coalitions were formal arrangements; sometimes they were informal arrangements. Sometimes the coalitions were organized around a single dominant bank, such as the Suffolk Bank of pre-Civil War New England, J.P. Morgan in the 19th century, or the Bank of Montreal in Canada. Sometimes private banks formed a coalition with the government, as British banks often did with the Bank of England. Not all these coalitions issued private money directly to the public, but all had features of coinsurance that correspond to liquidity creation. The extent to which coalitions were formed and were formalized is related to the frequency with which they were called upon to provide liquidity. This likelihood is related to some other important facts about banking history. In particular, historically, there is significant cross section variation in countries’ panic experiences. Historical studies have led to a consensus that the cross section variation in panic experience is due to variation in the industrial organization of the banking system. We review some of the evidence below. Such evidence is important because it suggests that panics are not an inherent feature of banking per se, as is commonly supposed and asserted theoretically. Our study is explicitly aimed at showing the importance of this industrial organization and its relation to the frequency of panics and bank failures. The model we analyze is simple. There are two core assumptions. First, there is asymmetric information between banks, who are better informed, and their depositors. Second, banks may engage in moral hazard if their equity falls below a critical value. These are fairly standard assumptions. As one might expect, these assumptions lead depositors to sometimes want to withdraw their bank deposits. Withdrawals may be inefficient because the bank may, in fact, be quite well off, but depositors do not know this. We consider different organizational forms of the banking industry, systems with a few highly branched, well diversified, banks, as well as systems 3 with many small independent unit banks. Panics do not occur in all of these systems, though withdrawals do. This is because the need for monitoring by depositors varies depending on the nature of the banking system, corresponding to economic history. There is a large existing literature on banking panics (See Gorton and Winton (2002) for a review of this literature). The dominant view among theorists emanates from Diamond and Dybvig (1983) who see banks as inherently unstable institutions prone to panics. Our view is different. It is closer to that of Calomiris and Kahn (1991) who also see panics as a monitoring device. But, the critical feature of their model is that depositors, who produce private information about the bank run, get into line first to withdraw. With first-come-first-served as the allocation rule, such information-producing depositors can cover the cost of their information production. Thus Calomiris and Kahn explain the first-come-first-served rule. But, this does not generate system wide panics, but rather runs on individual banks. We do not assume a first-come-first-served rule. We show that a system of large, well-diversified, banks is more efficient than a system of many small, independent, unit banks. A bank coalition can improve the efficiency of the system of small banks, but it cannot achieve the allocation provided by the system of large banks. The government cannot improve upon either the coalition system or the system of large banks unless (i) the government is assumed to have much more power than private agents, e.g., it can seize bank assets; (ii) there are negative externalities that the banks or the coalition fail to internalize; or (iii) the government has access to resources outside the model. It is difficult to find an economic rationale for the government to be the lender-of-last-resort, though see Gorton and Huang (2001).